fy2012 facilities mb&a presentation kansas state university · 4 peer group for benchmarking...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Sightlines LLC FY2012 Facilities MB&A Presentation Kansas State University Date: April 9th, 2013 Presented by: Nate Pramuk & Sophie Mason
Abilene Christian University Adelphi University
Alcorn State University American University
Amherst College Armstrong Atlantic State University
Asnuntuck Community College Augustana College (IL)
Babson College Bellarmine Preparatory School
Bentley University Berea College
Berkshire Community College Berkshire School
Bethel University Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Boston College Bowdoin College
Bowling Green State University Brandeis University
Bristol Community College (MA) Brown University Bryant University
Bryn Mawr College Bucknell University
Bunker Hill Community College (MA) Cabrini College
California Institute of the Arts California University of Pennsylvania
Cape Cod Community College (MA) Capital Community College
Carleton College Carnegie Mellon University
Central Connecticut State University Champlain College
Chapman University Charter Oak State College
Cheyney University of Pennsylvania Cincinnati State Technical and Community College
Claremont McKenna College Clarion University of Pennsylvania
Clemson University Cleveland State University
Colgate University College of Mount St. Joseph
College of Saint Benedict Columbus State Community College
Connecticut College Cornell University
Cuyahoga Community College Dalhousie University
Davidson College Delta State University
Drew University Drexel University
Duke University Duquesne University
Earlham College East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Eastern Connecticut State University Eastern Oregon University
Eckerd College Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Emerson College Emma Willard School
Fairfield University Fitchburg State University
Florida Institute of Technology Florida State University
Framingham State University Franklin & Marshall College
Franklin University Fuller Road Management Corporation
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Gallaudet University
Gateway Community College George Mason University
Georgia Institute of Technology Gettysburg College Gonzaga University
Goucher College Greenfield Community College (MA)
Grinnell College Gustavus Adolphus College
Hamilton College Hamline University Hampshire College
Harper College Harvey Mudd College
Holyoke Community College Housatonic Community College
Illinois Institute of Technology Indiana University
Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Iowa State University Ithaca College
Jackson State University Kansas State University
Keene State College Kent State University
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania Lakeland Community College
LaSalle University Le Moyne College
Lebanon Valley College Lewis & Clark College
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania Long Island University Brooklyn Campus
Long Island University C.W. Post Loyola Marymount University Loyola University in Maryland
Macalester College Manchester College
Manchester Community College Mansfield University of Pennsylvania
Massachusetts Bay Community College (MA) Massachusetts College of Art and Design
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massasoit Community College (MA)
Miami University Michigan State University
Middlebury College Middlesex Community College (CT)
Middlesex Community College (MA) Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Mississippi State University Mississippi University for Women
Mississippi Valley State University Missouri University of Science and Technology
Montana State University (Bozeman) Mount Holyoke College
Mount Wachusett Community College Naugatuck Community College
New Mexico State University New York University
North Shore Community College (MA) Northeastern University
Northern Arizona University Northern Essex Community College (MA)
Northwestern Connecticut Community College Northwestern University
Norwalk Community College Nova Southeastern University
Ohio University - Athens Oregon Institute of Technology
Oregon State University Otis College of Art & Design
Owens State Community College Pace University
Pacific Lutheran University Plymouth State University
Polytechnic Institute of NYU Portland State University
Potomac State College Princeton University
Purdue University Quinebaug Valley Community College
Quinsigamond Community College (MA) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rider University Roger Williams University
Roxbury Community College Rutgers University
Saint Louis University Saint Mary’s College (IN)
Saint Mary’s College of California Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Siena College Sinclair Community College
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania Smith College
Southern Connecticut State University Southern Methodist University
Southern Oregon University Springfield Technical Community College
St. Lawrence University Stevens Institute of Technology
SUNY – Purchase College Swarthmore College Syracuse University
Temple University Texas A&M University
The Catholic University of America The College of Saint Rose
The College of Wooster The Johns Hopkins University
The Lawrenceville School The New School
The Ohio State University The Peddie School
The Pennsylvania State University The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
The Sage Colleges The University of Alabama
The University of Alabama at Birmingham The University of Dayton The University of Maine
The University of Mississippi The University of Rhode Island, Kingston
Thomas Jefferson University Three Rivers Community College
Towson University Trinity University
Tufts University Tunxis Community College
University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Alaska Southeast
University of Arizona University of Arkansas
University of California – Davis University of California – Irvine
University of California San Francisco Medical Center University of Cincinnati
University of Chicago University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Denver University of Hartford
University of Idaho University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Kentucky University of Maine at Augusta
University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Fort Kent
University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle
University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Michigan University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi Medical Center University of Missouri
University of Missouri - Kansas City University of Missouri - St. Louis
University of Nebraska at Kearney University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven University of North Texas University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania
University of Portland University of Redlands
University of Rochester University of San Diego
University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine
University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas (TX)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Toledo
University of the Pacific University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Vermont Upper Iowa University
Utica College Vassar College
Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services
Virginia State University Wagner College
Washburn University Wellesley College
Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania
West Virginia Health Sciences Center West Virginia University
Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University
Westfield State University Wheaton College (MA)
Whitworth University Widener University
Williams College Williston Northampton School
Worcester State College Xavier University
Yeshiva University Youngstown State University
Make sure institution is listed – Slide Master
2
Sightlines profile: 42 states, DC, Nova Scotia
Facilities MB&A Go-Green MB&A Housing MB&A
Common facilities
vocabulary
Consistent analytical
methodology
Context through
benchmarking
3
Asset Reinvestment
The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management
The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs”
The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs”
A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM
Annual Stewardship
Operational Effectiveness
Service
Asset Value Change Operations Success
The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customer’s opinion of service delivery
4
Peer group for benchmarking Peers selected based on space profile, conference, land-grant, program
K-State Peers
Institution Big 12
Land-grant Schools
Top 50 Research
Clemson University
Iowa State University
Michigan State University
Oregon State University
Purdue University
Texas A&M University
The Ohio State University
The Pennsylvania State University
The University of Mississippi
University of Arkansas
University of Colorado
University of Illinois
University of Missouri
Land-grant Institutions as designated by the state legislature. www.aplu.org
5
Core observations at Kansas State
Space Profile Campus space is older and less technically complex than peers.
Capital Profile Capital investment has not demonstrated significant commitment to updating facilities to be comparable with Top 50 research institutions.
Operational Profile Operations are performing exceedingly well considering campus stressors and limited resources.
6
Space Profile
7
High Risk: Larger building
components come due
Moderate Risk:
Smaller needs come due
Low Risk: “Honeymoon”
Stage
High Risk: Buildings reach end of lifecycles
K-State’s physical profile Almost 90% of K-State’s space is high-risk
2% 5% 5%
10%
78%
42%
15%
29%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
KSU Peers
Tech Rating vs. Peers
Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Tech 4 Tech 5
5% 7%
38%
50%
20%
26%
33%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
% o
f G
SF
K-State’s Age Profile vs. Peers
KSU Peers
8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
$/G
SF
KSU Age Distribution Annual Life Cycle Cash Flow Amortization of Life Cycle Expenses
10 – 25 Years 25-50 Years
% o
f Cam
pu
s GSF
Detailed age distribution The majority of K-State’s buildings are past the end of life for an average building
Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age)
5% 7% 38%
Amortization
Under 10 50+ Years
50%
Average age of all Over 50 space: 81
9
Older space is more costly for operations
$191 $182
$326
$225
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ave
rage
$/W
O C
ost
*
Weighted Renovation Age
Relative Demands of Buildings by Age Category
*Work Order costs are sample data – NOT specific to K-State
Under 10 225,016 GSF
10-25 347,490 GSF
25-50 1,810,352 GSF
Over 50 2,354,734 GSF
10
Science research space at K-State vs. Peers K-State’s research space is both older and less complex than peers
0
1
2
3
4
5
KSU
B C D E F G H I J K L M N
Composite Tech Rating of Science Research Space – KSU vs. Peers
4%
11%
63%
22% 20%
26%
33%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 - 10 10-25 25-50 50+
% o
f G
SF
Age Profile of Science Research Space
KSU Renovation Age
Peers Renovation Age
11
K-State’s space profile vs. other research schools Compared to other top 50 research schools, KSU is still older and lower tech
Clemson University Florida State University Indiana University IUPUI Iowa State University Michigan State University Oregon State University Purdue University Rutgers University Temple University Texas A&M University The Ohio State University The Pennsylvania State University The University of Alabama The University of Arizona University of California – Davis University of California – Irvine University of Colorado - Boulder University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri University of Oregon Virginia Commonwealth University
12
Science research space per student K-State has more research space per student than other campuses
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
KSU A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
GSF
/FTE
Science Research Space per Student – K-State vs. Peers and Top 50 Research
Peers Top 50 Research
Top 50 Research Average: 65 Peer Avg.: 63
13
Density factor compared to similar schools K-State’s campus has a similar density level compared to peers and the database
Density – Entire Campus
KSU
Peers
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School Community College
Database avg. = 348
Top 50 Research
14
Summary of space characteristics K-State compared to peers and Top 50 Research institutions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Campus Age
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Tech Rating
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Science Research GSF/Student FTE
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Density Factor
Yea
rs
GSF
/FTE
Use
rs/1
00
k G
SF
K-State Peers Top 50 Research
56
41
40
3.40 3.31
3.07
104
65
63
343
320
350
15
Capital Profile
16
Total capital spending Spending $13.6M on average annually
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Mill
ion
s
Total Capital Spending
Existing Space New Space/Non-Facilities
Avg: $13.6M
17
Total capital spending Spending $6.3M on average annually
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Mill
ion
s
Total Capital Spending
Existing Space
Avg: $6.3M
18
$44.0
$16.7 $12.5
$20.6
$7.2
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)
Minimum Annual Investment(Target)
$ in M
illions
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
Kansas State University FY2012 Stewardship Targets
Defining a stewardship target
Replacement Value = $1.5B
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations
Totals: $44M
Target = 75% Envelope/Mechanical +
35% Space/Programming
$37.3M $19.7M
19
$16.7 $12.5
$8.5 $6.3
$8.3 $6.2
$20.6
$7.2 $11.7
$4.1
$8.9
$3.1
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Life CycleNeed
(Equilibrium)
MinimumAnnual
Investment(Target)
Life CycleNeed
(Equilibrium)
MinimumAnnual
Investment(Target)
Life CycleNeed
(Equilibrium)
MinimumAnnual
Investment(Target)
$ in M
illions
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
Stewardship target by campus
Composite Science Research Non-Science Research
20
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
Env/Mech Space/Program
Annual stewardship investment vs. target Spending has been consistently below target, deferring $15M annually
Annual Stewardship Spending vs. Target
Increasing NAV
Sustaining NAV
Decreasing NAV
Minimum Annual Investment
74%
26%
Total Stewardship FY05-FY12
21
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
Env/Mech Space/Program
Stewardship to target by campus Meeting more of the stewardship target in non-science research space
Annual Stewardship Spending vs. Target
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
Science Research Non-Science Research
Average: 5% of Target Average: 9% of Target
22
Annual stewardship compared to peers Peers can rely on a consistently higher recurring source of funding
Und
er-P
erfo
rmin
g
Out- Perform
ing
In-Line
Stewardship Range DB
Range
Less than 20% 50%
20%-50% 40%
Over 50% 10%
Spending $2M less than peers annually
12.5 -
Top 50 Research Average: 27%
23
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
$40.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
Total capital investment vs. target Average deferral has been $10.7M annually; over $86M deferred since FY05
Total Spending vs. Target
Increasing NAV
Sustaining NAV
Decreasing NAV
Minimum Annual Investment
82%
18%
Total Spending FY05-FY12
Env/Mech Space/Program
24
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
AS AR
Total project spending by campus Non-science space received the majority of one-time capital in recent years
Total Project Spending vs. Target
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mil
lio
ns
Science Research Non-Science Research
Average: 7% of Target Average: 33% of Target
25
KSU – Non-Science Research KSU – Science Research Peers
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AS AR
Spending to target by campus Non-science research space spends closer to target than science research space
Total Project Spending vs. Target
Decreasing Net Asset Value
Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value
% o
f tar
ge
t
26
KSU – Entire Campus Peers
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AS AR
Total funding vs. target compared to peers One-time capital is not enough to make up the gap between AS and the target
Total Project Spending vs. Target
Decreasing Net Asset Value
% o
f ta
rge
t
Top 50 Research Average: 84%
K-State Avg.: 35%
Peer Avg.: 98%
Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value
27
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
Bldg. Envelope Bldg. Systems Infrastructure Space Code
$/G
SF
$/GSF by type of project FY05-FY12 Avg.
KSU - Science Research KSU - Non-Science Research Peers
Total capital investment by project type K-State’s project spending into space renewal is notably lower than peers’
25%
29%
28%
15%
3%
KSU – Entire Campus FY05-FY12
Bldg. Envelope Bldg. SystemsInfrastructure SpaceCode
13%
30%
21%
31%
5%
Peers FY05-FY12
28
Asset Reinvestment Backlog K-State’s backlog has been increasing twice as fast as peers’
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
Peers KSU
$/G
SF
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Total Backlog ($/GSF)
Renovation age: 56
Avg Renovation age: 41
Capital Upkeep Stage
Repair and Maintain Stage
Systemic Renovation Stage
Transitional Stage (Gut Reno/Demo)
Preventative Maintenance Stage
Top 50 Research Average: $92/GSF
Sightlines IFP Estimate of K-State’s Total Backlog
29
Summary of capital spending profile K-State compared to peers and Top 50 Research institutions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
AS Spending % of Target*
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Env/Mech $/GSF*
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Space/Program $/GSF*
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
AR Backlog $/GSF
%
$/G
SF
$/G
SF
K-State Peers Top 50 Research
12%
21%
27%
$2.56
$2.61
$1.11
$0.24
$1.52
$1.43
$79
$71
$92 $/
GSF
*8-year average
$110 SL estimated
30
Operational Performance
31
Facilities operating budget Daily Service and Planned Maintenance lower than peers historically
KSU’s Daily Service budget is $2.8M leaner than peers’
32
Supplemental funding to the state-funded budget Service clearing and R&R dollars to supplement the expense budget are increasing
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$/G
SF
Expenses Budget vs. Peers
Budget Service Clearing R&R
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/G
SF
Supplemental Expense Funding at KSU
Budget Service Clearing R&R
KSU’s spending on expenses is still $3M below that of peers
Peer avg = $1.27
33
Energy consumption and costs Fossil fuel consumption decreased significantly in FY12, but electric is still above peers
Fossil Fuel Electricity
FY2012 decrease in fossil fuel saved KSU $891k
Steam Loop Project cost a total of $2.4M
Payback of just 3 years, with $900k in savings each year after
34
Maintenance operations Age of buildings and low capital spending demand additional resources
Peer: 112,353 DB: 89,541 Peer: 12.6 DB: 11.1
Peer: $0.22
DB: $0.23
Inspection KSU Peers Database
General Repair 3.7 3.7 3.9
Exteriors 3.8 3.8 3.8
Institutions ordered by technical complexity
Un
der
-Per
form
ing
Ou
t- Perfo
rmin
g
In-Line
35
Custodial operations Custodial operations providing high value with leaner resources but impressive results
Peer: 45,818 DB: 37,181 Peer: 18.3 DB: 19.4
Peer: $0.10
DB: $0.12
Inspection KSU Peers Database
Cleanliness 4.3 3.9 4.1
Institutions ordered by density factor
Un
der
-Per
form
ing
Ou
t- Perfo
rmin
g
In-Line
36
Grounds operations Similar resources, superior performance to peers
Peer: 35.7 DB: 22 Peer: 12.9 DB: 11.7
Peer: $363
DB: $575
Inspection KSU Peers Database
Grounds 4.3 3.8 4.0
Institutions ordered by grounds intensity
Un
der
-Per
form
ing
Ou
t- Perfo
rmin
g
In-Line
37
Service output scores
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Performance Measurement
Work Request Capabilities
Scheduling Process
Centralization of Request
Organizational Structure
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Grounds
Exterior
Mechanical Spaces
General Repair/Impression
Cleanliness
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
General satisfaction
Feedback
Work meets expectations
Schedule and service levels
Knowledge/ Understanding in Process
Service Process Scores:
Inspection Scores:
Customer Satisfaction Scores:
20
40
60
80
100
0
%
20
40
60
80
100
0
%
20
40
60
80
100
0
%
38
Questions & Comments
39
Concluding Comments
Asset Value Change
Annual Stewardship-
Strive to grow funding whenever possible – look to energy savings or recapturing capital dollars from the budget as possible areas to strengthen AS. It takes roughly $3-$4 in reinvestment spending to result in the same impact as $1 in stewardship spending.
Asset Reinvestment-
Because funding is limited, project selection is becoming increasingly important – focus on projects that may release operational resources or update research space to meet more modern programmatic needs. Focus spending into projects with the longest lifecycle, as NAV of campus is in a Systemic Renovation Stage. A dollar spent in envelope/mechanical needs will last 20-25 years vs. space/program projects that last 8-10 years.
Annual Stewardship
Service A
sset
Rei
nve
stm
ent
Op
eration
al Effectiveness
40
Operational Effectiveness-
State allocated operating resources are not sufficient to meet campus needs. Facilities is consistently doing more with less – work to protect current resource levels. Continue to monitor energy consumption to sustain the downward trend. Lobby for control of energy savings due to energy conservation efforts such as the steam tunnel project. Campus age and asset reinvestment are straining trades staff significantly. However, trades are able to provide high quality work and results comparable to peers.
Service- Implement the proposed e-mail feedback system for users
in order to monitor quality and boost service process with Asset Works.
Develop improved tracking reports to monitor production
and effectiveness more closely.
Concluding Comments
Annual Stewardship
Service A
sset
Rei
nve
stm
ent
Op
eration
al Effectiveness
Operations Success
41
Conclusion